Rowley Family Foundation

Rowley Family Foundation is a small, entirely family-run private foundation based in Scottsdale, Arizona (EIN 83-2845098), governed by seven Rowley family members and one non-family secretary, none of whom draw compensation. With roughly $5.25 million in assets and no dedicated program staff, this is not an institution built to process open applications at scale — it is a family giving vehicle whose grant decisions flow through personal relationships and board discretion. The database flags it as "accepting applications" but its application_instructions field is empty and no LOI form, portal, or published guidelines exist anywhere online, which strongly signals a relationship-first, largely by-referral process rather than a competitive open cycle.

The grantee roster (38 recorded grants totaling $1,399,816) shows a clear pattern: the foundation favors small-to-midsize, operationally lean nonprofits — often Arizona-based animal rescues, pediatric health/hospice organizations, and human-services groups working on homelessness or basic needs — alongside a handful of larger, higher-profile grants to national or regional nonprofits with strong brand recognition (Christel House International at $210,000 across 4 grants; Celebrity Fight Night at $50,000; Victoria's Voice Foundation at $403,200 across 4 grants, its single largest relationship on record). That combination suggests two entry points: (1) direct, personal outreach from a small AZ nonprofit whose mission maps to family interests (pediatric care, animal welfare, at-risk youth, addiction/overdose prevention), or (2) a gala, event-sponsorship, or board-connection pathway for larger organizations.

First-time applicants should not expect a formal LOI-to-proposal-to-site-visit funnel typical of larger institutional funders. Instead, expect a single point of contact (Marcia Rowley, listed as President on the c/o line), likely a short written inquiry followed by a conversation, and a decision driven by board consensus rather than staff-level program review. Given multiple grants to the same recipients across years (Victoria's Voice x4, Christel House x4, Ryan House x3, Woman of Wonder x3), sustained funding for organizations the family already trusts is far more common here than one-off, first-time large awards — so a modest first grant that builds a track record is a more realistic goal than a six-figure ask out of the gate.

Grant activity here is genuinely small-dollar and family-directed. Across the 38 grants captured in the database (spanning multiple fiscal years), total giving is $1,399,816 at an average of $36,837 per grant — but that average is skewed upward by a few repeat, larger relationships. The platform's typical_grant_size field, drawn from a more recent single-year sample (n=8), shows a tighter and more representative range: median $17,500, average $30,750, floor $5,000, ceiling $67,000. FY2024's actual filed results (4 grants, $71,750 total, ~$17,900 average) sit right in that same band, reinforcing that a realistic ask for most applicants is in the $5,000-$25,000 range, with $50,000+ reserved for a small number of established, repeat relationships.

Program focus, by dollar share of the 38-grant sample: health and pediatric/medical causes lead at roughly 44% ($623,200) — driven by Victoria's Voice Foundation's opioid-prevention/naloxone-access work ($403,200), Ryan House's pediatric hospice care ($130,000), Celebrity Fight Night's cancer-research gala support ($50,000), and Phoenix Children's Hospital ($25,000). Children/youth and anti-poverty causes follow at about 22% ($310,000), anchored by Christel House International's global child-poverty work ($210,000) and Woman of Wonder's scholarships ($30,000). Animal welfare/rescue is a distinct and consistent third pillar at roughly 18% ($253,616) across five organizations (Pacc911, Pupster Rescue, Saving Paws Rescue AZ, Liberty Wildlife, Lovepup Foundation). Basic human services — homelessness, food, water access — account for about 14% ($193,000), including Friends of the Carpenter, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Homeward Bound, and Charity Global's Cambodia/Ethiopia water program.

Geographically, Arizona dominates with 21 of 38 grants (55%), followed by Washington (6 grants, 16%), Florida and Indiana (4 grants/11% each), and single grants to New York, Louisiana, and Wisconsin. Total giving trended down through the filing history from a 2023 peak (total_giving of $397,474 per the platform's financial roll-up, or $260,166 in grants_paid) to a sharp FY2024 contraction to $71,750 — a trend applicants should factor into timing expectations.

Rowley Family Foundation sits among a cluster of similarly asset-sized ($5.2-5.25M) private foundations classified under Philanthropy & Grantmaking, though most of its true peers by asset size have no public web presence at all, underscoring how small and low-profile this entire tier of funder is.

All five peers cluster within $2,500 of Rowley's asset base almost certainly by database construction (matched on size band and NTEE code) rather than shared strategy, and none publish grant-level giving data or an application process, which is typical for foundations this size. Rowley is comparatively transparent by virtue of appearing on Cause IQ, Grantable, Candid, and Instrumentl with itemized grant history — most peers in this tier disclose nothing beyond their IRS filings, so applicants should expect this entire class of funder to require direct, individualized outreach rather than a standard portal process.

Public reporting specific to Rowley Family Foundation in 2025-2026 is sparse — no press releases, news articles, or foundation announcements from this window turned up in web search. The most concrete recent signal is financial: aggregated 990 data (via Instrumentl and Grantable) shows FY2024 total giving of $71,750 across 4 grants, down from prior-year levels in the $260,000-$397,000 range, a roughly 70%+ contraction. The listed recipients for that most recent complete year were Christel House International ($50,000), Woman of Wonder ($10,000), Healthy Equitable Living Project ($10,000), and Pacc911 ($1,750) — a smaller, more concentrated slate than in earlier years when the foundation supported 6-10 organizations annually.

Leadership listings show some flux worth flagging to applicants: Marcia G Rowley appears in filings both as "Director" and, in at least one filing year, as "President," while Josh Rowley is also listed as President in other records — consistent with either a title transition within the family board or simply inconsistent 990 reporting across years. Either way, current correspondence should be addressed using the most recent contact line on file: "% Marcia Rowley, President," at the foundation's Scottsdale office (15900 N 78th St, Suite 100).

One important caution for anyone researching this funder further: a similarly-named "Rowley Family Foundation Fund for Women & Children," active through the Community Foundation of Orange and Sullivan in New York and associated with a "Rich Rowley," made a well-publicized $516,791 grant round to 15 organizations in 2019. That is a distinct entity (a donor-advised fund at a New York community foundation) and should not be confused with the Scottsdale, Arizona private foundation (EIN 83-2845098) that is the subject of this report, despite the name overlap and shared thematic interest in women and children.

There is no published LOI form, online portal, RFP, or stated deadline for Rowley Family Foundation — application_instructions in the platform's own database is explicitly empty, and no application guidance surfaced anywhere in web research. Treat this as a relationship-driven family foundation, not an institutional grantmaker with a formal cycle, and calibrate outreach accordingly:

• Lead with a short, direct inquiry, not a full proposal. Given the absence of any formal process, a concise one-to-two-page letter of introduction — organization, mission, specific funding need, and dollar amount — addressed to Marcia Rowley (President, per the contact line on file) at the Scottsdale office is more appropriate than a lengthy grant application packet the foundation isn't set up to process.
• Anchor the ask to a realistic dollar range. Recent single-year data puts the typical grant between $5,000 and $67,000 (median $17,500); FY2024's actual awards ran $1,750-$50,000. Asking for $100,000+ without a prior relationship is out of step with everything on record except the foundation's single largest multi-year partner (Victoria's Voice, $403,200 across 4 grants over time — built cumulatively, not in one award).
• Align with one of the four demonstrated pillars: pediatric/child health, children and anti-poverty work, animal rescue/welfare, or basic human services (homelessness, food, water access). Proposals outside these lanes have no supporting precedent in the grant history.
• Arizona-based organizations have the clearest track record (55% of grants by count), but the foundation has funded in Washington, Indiana, Florida, Louisiana, New York, and Wisconsin — so an out-of-state nonprofit with a personal or event-based connection to a family member is not automatically disqualified.
• Expect funding to favor renewal over one-time gifts. Several organizations (Victoria's Voice, Christel House, Ryan House, Woman of Wonder, Society of St. Vincent de Paul) received grants in 3-4 separate years. A modest first grant that opens a multi-year relationship is a more realistic goal than a single maximum-size ask.
• Common mistake to avoid: treating this like a large institutional foundation with staff-reviewed cycles. There is no program officer, no site-visit infrastructure evident in the record, and no compensated staff at all (all seven listed people, including the President, report $0 compensation) — over-formal, jargon-heavy proposals aimed at a review committee will likely land the wrong way with what is fundamentally a hands-on family board.
• Timing caution: FY2024's sharp pullback in total giving (down roughly 70%+ from FY2023) suggests capacity may currently be constrained — set expectations accordingly and don't assume prior years' totals are still the norm.